I did not say that at all. I was saying the evidence that the BB does not help knock Big 6 conference teams in the middle (or bottom)  of the conference in favor of a team who wins a BB game is not present come selection sunday. THe 5th 6th or 7th team in from the Big 10 still gets a nod because of the tendency for big 6 conference teams avoiding playing the mids who actually have a chance of beating them (on their home floor is omitted as that is given and would be redundant) .  I would be more inclined to stay with the 64 team event if they would force the Big 6 teams to play their non cons 50/50 at home and away. Till then ....given the refs propensity to lean to the home team (evidence in an article in a nother thread) , the relative % of teams that actually win an away game in the NCAA and the apparent leaning of the selection committee to select a bubble team from the lower half of a major conference over teams that are from other conferences in an almost machine like precision I do not think the BB gets the mid who is winning a BB game a spot in the tourney based on that Saturday in February.

It's tough to know for sure but it could be argued that last year's Final Four run by VCU was fueled by a BracketBuster win. They were in the First Four games in Dayton so they were clearly a bubble team. Did their BracketBuster win at Wichita St. last year give them the RPI boost/resume needed to get into the Dance? Perhaps.

We all say we want what the 5-6-7 teams in the Big 6 conferences have. National TV and a chance to improve RPI on a nightly basis. That's what the BracketBuster provides, it's up to you not to choke on it. I think it's hypocritical on the one hand to begrudge  what they have but then to turn it down when it's offered to you. Even in my cynical mind, I think the BracketBuster may be used to decide which non-Power 6 teams get in and not as a way to exclude them. Does anyone have evidence that shows how the BracketBuster is used as an exclusionary tool?

Xince we're not in the slelection room but have been listening between the lines over the years when they interview the guys coming out.... I think there is a probably an opportunity to make that argument....or make the argument the other way.....too grey to call .....but hard evidence....probably not....like Johnny Cochran estblished...."if it does not fit you must acquit", the NCAA selection committee would get the nod same as OJ.

The rest of your post is spot on......and makes a ton of sense. I like the BB as it gets us cross conference and in most years locking us into a return with the Horizon, VAlley or Mountain West is a good thing.....if UNAs is becoming the GOnzaga/Butler of the conference and we put our game 2 years out and they have 3 or 4 NCAA s under their belt beating them on their home floor is a bigger boost to our  situation....moreso than winning at a valley school like Illinois State who is floundering.

Way too much angst on here - It's called "Bracket" - "Busters". We could "Bust" a win. Or - we could "Bust" ourselves. Just be glad we are in - and win the friggin' game.........................

Keep doin' that for several years and we don't have any of this pre "Buster" angst.......................

Win The Game!

I used to be all in for the BracketBusters. I thought it was a good way for Mid-Majors who were on the bubble to separate themselves from those who should fall off. And that is exactly what it does. It allows fewer Mid-Majors to get in, in general, allowing more spots for the high-revenue, high-major teams.

And don't say all that matters is winning the MAC Tournament. If that's true we should just screw BracketBusters, too, because the idea of it is to get more Mid-Majors an at-large berth, which I generally believe it fails at doing.

If the Top Ten mid-majors played and five lost, that's five teams who just got their bubbles bursted. If those same five teams just continue to dominate conference play, they will not lose. Maybe they won't get the "key win" they need, but they probably won't get that "key loss" either.

Additionally, what does playing a team with an RPI like UNC-Asheville's actually do for us? If we win, will it boost our strength of schedule? Not that much. It will help less than playing Buffalo and Kent State and marginally more than playing Western Michigan. I don't see us going all crazy about those games being an awesome way to get a signature win or boost our RPI.

Therefore, the conference needs to pull out of the BracketBusters and invest in some smart mid-conference season scheduling. I believe that many high-major teams would love to have a mid-major come into their arena in the middle of the conference season. It will be a nice rest from the grind of playing a high-major schedule for three straight months. They will likely overlook our 'Cats, which will present an opportunity for a key win.

There are a couple of regional teams that might do a two-and-one such as Dayton, Saint Louis and Xavier. Other teams that might do two home games against us that are regional (and generally have good RPIs) include Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville, Tennessee, Memphis, Illinois, Indiana (on the uptick) and N.C. State. That's 13 schools. I almost guarantee ONE of those schools would at least try it.

Benefits for the high-major:
• Not an extremely tough game
• Extra home game, with no return game
• Not a terrible hit to SOS
• For a nonconference opponent mid-major, we are a "name" school.

Benefits for Ohio:
• Short travel distance
• Good revenue
• Even with a away loss, will improve SOS and probably RPI
• Win is a huge RPI boon and gives us a "key" win

That's just my opinion, though.